Seal v. State
| Decision Date | 13 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 1430,1430 |
| Parties | DAVID GLENN SEAL v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
UNREPORTED
Berger, Reed, Raker, Irma S. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Berger, J.
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, David Glenn Seal ("Seal"), appellant, was convicted of child sexual abuse, four counts of third-degree sex offense, and six counts of second-degree sex offense. Seal was sentenced to fifteen years' incarceration for child sexual abuse. The court sentenced Seal to a consecutive fifteen-year period of incarceration for one count of second-degree sex offense. The court further sentenced Seal to a consecutive fifteen-year period of incarceration for a second count of second-degree sex offense. Concurrent sentences were imposed for the remaining counts.
On appeal, Seal presents three issues for our review, which we have rephrased as follows:
1. Whether the trial court erred by denying Seal's motion to suppress a recorded telephone conversation between Seal and the victim.
2. Whether the trial court erred by declining to propound Seal's requested jury instruction.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Seal's conviction for child sexual abuse.
For the reasons stated herein, we shall affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.
The following evidence was adduced at trial. Donald W. ("Donald") was born on October 10, 1971. He is forty-four years old and currently lives in Charleston, West Virginia. As a child, Donald lived with his mother, Shanda Seal, and his step-father, Mack Henry Seal,Jr. in Montgomery County, Maryland. Seal is the brother of Mack Henry Seal, Jr., and the step-uncle of Donald. Seal resided with his mother, Pearl Seal, who was also Donald's step-grandmother ("Step-Grandmother").
Donald did not graduate from high school. Donald repeated the fifth-grade once and the ninth-grade multiple times before he dropped out of school. Donald was in the fifth-grade during the 1981-1982 and 1982-1983 school years. During the summer of 1982, when Donald was ten years old, Donald spent multiple nights at Step-Grandmother's house, where Donald would sleep in the guest bedroom. Donald testified that during that summer, he woke one morning at Step-Grandmother's house to "somebody touching" his penis. When Donald woke fully, he saw Seal leaving the guest bedroom. Seal returned approximately five minutes later and began to fondle Donald's penis beneath his underwear. Donald was "scared" and "didn't know what to do."
The sexual abuse continued throughout the summer of 1982 and over the following two years, and became increasingly frequent each time Donald stayed at Step-Grandmother's house. Seal performed anal and oral sex on Donald, and had Donald perform oral sex on him. Donald estimated that the abuse may have occurred between ten and twenty times during the summer of 1982, but explained that he had difficulty remembering the number of times because "[i]t's the kind of thing you want to put out of your mind." The abuse occurred in various locations around Step-Grandmother's home, including the basement,bathroom, and a barn. While in the bathroom, Seal used the handle of a plunger to penetrate Donald's anus. The abuse continued for multiple years.1
The abuse ended at approximately the time that Donald was entering the seventh grade, when Donald began to distance himself from Seal. Donald did not tell anyone about the abuse while it was occurring because he was "scared" and "afraid." Seal told Donald that he would hurt Donald's mother and brother if he reported the abuse. When Donald was twenty-one years old, he told his mother and step-father about the abuse. Donald's mother and step-father were upset, but did not do anything about the abuse. Donald did not contact the police or anyone else because he was embarrassed.
Donald eventually married and had four children with his first wife, whom he divorced in 1999. Donald married his current wife, Stacey W. ("Stacey"), in 2007, and they had one child. Donald told Stacey about the abuse prior to their marriage. In approximately mid-2000, Stacey confronted Seal in the parking lot following a family member's funeral. Stacey asked Seal "why he did that to [Donald]" and told Seal that "he should be ashamed of himself." Seal responded that "the devil had a hold of him" and that he was "sorry for what he did."
Some years later, Donald telephoned Seal because the abuse had "been weighing heavy on" him. The conversation lasted approximately twenty minutes. Donald asked Sealwhy he had abused him as a child. Seal responded that "the devil got a hold of him." Seal telephoned Donald approximately one week later. Seal apologized to Donald, telling Donald that "he was sorry if he ever did anything to [Donald]" and that he was sorry that he "did anything to [Donald] that hurt" him. Seal told Donald that he "was a changed man and he went to church." Seal offered to "make payments" to Donald, and offered up to $7,000.00. Donald declined the financial offer from Seal.
Several days later, on January 22, 2013, Stacey contacted the police via telephone and inquired about steps to take to begin an investigation into child sexual abuse. Stacey and Donald went to the police station and Donald told Detective Tracey Copeland about the abuse. Donald and Detective Copeland attempted to telephone Seal together, but they were unable to reach him. Donald and Detective Copeland telephoned Seal multiple times from the police station, but Seal did not answer.
Before Donald left the police station, Detective Copeland provided Donald with equipment that would enable Donald to record a telephone conversation. Detective Copeland showed Donald how to use the equipment, which included an ear device and recording device. After Donald returned to his home in West Virginia, Donald used the equipment to record a telephone call with Seal on February 5, 2013. During the recorded call, Seal made multiple incriminating statements. Specifically, Seal admitted to having anal sex with Donald and to performing fellatio on Donald. Seal apologized "for hurting [Donald] backthen" and apologized "if [he] did any harm to [Donald]." Seal explained that he "just wasn't in [his] mind at the time."
The case was tried on March 4, 5, and 6, 2014 in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. At trial, the recorded telephone conversation was played for the jury over defense counsel's objection. The jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts: one count of child sexual abuse, four counts of third-degree sex offense, and six counts of second-degree sex offense. On July 31, 2014, the circuit court sentenced Seal to fifteen years' incarceration for child sexual abuse, fifteen years consecutive for one count of second-degree sex offense, and fifteen years consecutive for a second count of second-degree sex offense. Concurrent sentences were imposed for the remaining counts.
Additional facts shall be included as necessitated by our discussion of the issues.
Seal contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress recorded telephone calls introduced to his detriment at trial. Seal maintains that one who intercepts a wire communication under a statutory exception to the general prohibition on interceptions of communication under Md. Code ( , § 10-402(c)(2) of the Cts. & Jud. Proc. Article ("CJP"), must do so within the territorial limitations of CJP § 10-408(c)(2), and (3) (). Further, Seal avers that Detective Copeland did not sufficiently superviseDonald so as to make this recording a permissible interception under CJP § 10-402(c)(2). For the reasons that follow, we reject these arguments and affirm the circuit court's denial of Seal's motion to suppress.
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under CJP § 10-405 (), "we view the evidence presented at the hearing, along with any reasonable inferences drawable therefrom, in a light most favorable to the prevailing party." Davis v. State, 426 Md. 211, 219 (2012). Moreover, "'we confine ourselves to what occurred at the suppression hearing.'" Gonzalez v. State, 429 Md. 632, 647 (2012) (quoting Lee v. State, 418 Md. 136, 148 (2011)). "The credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given to the evidence, and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence come within the province of the suppression court." Id. at 647-48 (citing Longshore v. State, 399 Md. 486, 499 (2007)); see also Wilkes v. State, 364 Md. 554, 569 (2001) (). We review de novo the question of whether, based on the facts, the circuit court's decision was in accordance with the law. See Crosby v. State, 408 Md. 490, 505 (2009) ().
To properly construe these provisions of the Maryland wiretap statutes, we review the applicable sources of authority and limitations placed on those authorities. Moreover, we also compare the analogous federal authorities to help us interpret the Maryland Act. Long before our Fourth Amendment analysis was affixed to an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, Justice Taft, writing for the United States Supreme Court, reasoned that wiretapping without trespass could not be a physical intrusion sufficient to constitute a Fourth Amendment violation. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 465 (1928) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial